Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
6. Rights of Accused - Coggle Diagram
6. Rights of Accused
A. Rights of accused at the trial
a. Right to due process
Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
The accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Matters required to be contained in the complaint or information
(a) Name and surname of accused
(b) Name and surname of offended party
(c) Acts or omissions constituting the offense and designation of offense
(d) Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances
(e) Committed within jurisdiction of the court
(f) Date of commission of offense
(g) Property must be described with scuch particularity (for offenses against property)
Circumstances must be alleged
Circumstances not specifically alleged in the information cannot be appreciated.
Charges included lesser crimes
Where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime, but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.
Ambiguities in Complaint or Information
When an ambiguity exists in the complaint or information, the court must resolve the ambiguity in favor of the accused.
Ambiguity on identity of subject of offense
When an ambiguity exists as to the identity of the subject of the offense, the accused must be acquitted.
The failure of the information to identify the subject of the offense deprives the accused of the right to be informed of the nature of the offense being charged and to be informed of an essential element of the offense.
Counsel's Participation
The active participation of the counsel of the accused in the proceedings indicates that the accused was fully aware of the charges against him.
Otherwise, his counsel would have objected and informed the court of the blunder.
Failure to file Motion to Quash = Not a Waiver
The failure to file a motion to quash the information cannot amount to a waiver of the constitutional right to be informed.
b. Presumption of innocence
Prosecution has Burden
The prosecution bears the burden to overcome such presumption.
Prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence
To discharge the burden, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of evidence by the defense.
Failure to Discharge Burden = Acquittal
If the prosecution fails to discharge this burden, the accused deserves a judgment of acquittal.
Failure to Discharge Burden = No need to present evidence by Defense
If the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may not even present evidence on its own behalf.
In such case, the presumption of innocence prevails and the accused should be acquitted.
However, once the presumption of innocence is overcome, the defense has the burden to show reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each element of the crime and the identity of the accused as the criminal.
Definition
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not absolute certainty. It is moral certainty.
It is that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Presence of Reasonable Doubt = Acquittal
Where there is reasonable doubt, acquittal must then follow.
The premise is that an accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
Doubts as to the Innocence of the Accused
When there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be doubted.
The righ to be presumed innocent can only be overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Exception: Self-Defense
If the accused admits killing the victim but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him.
Thus, he must prove such defense by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.
Reason
When self-defense is invoked, it implies the admission by the accused that he committed the criminal act.
Presumption of Regularity vs. Presumption of Innocence
Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty should not, by itself, prevail over the presumption of innocence.
Presence of Irregularities
The presumption of regularity is available only when there is no deviation from the regular performance of duty.
Where the official act is irregular on its face, no presumption of regularity can arise.
Equipoise Rule
If the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are evenly balanced, the accused must be acquitted.
Under such circumstances, the presumption of innocence must prevail.
When Applied
The rule is applied where the court is faced with conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense, and where the evidence, facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations.
One is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other is consistent with his guilt.
This situation cannot fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.
When Not Applied
There is no equipoise if the evidence is not evenly balanced.
The equipoise rule cannot be invoked where the evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming.
However, any doubt shall be resolved in favor of the accused.
c. Right against self-incrimination
Constitutional Right
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
(Sec.17, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution)
Rules of Court
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:
x x x
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself
(Sec. 1(e), Rule 115, ROC)
Purpose
To prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him.
To avoid a person subject to such compulsion to perjure himself for his own protection.
Meaning of Compulsion
Compulsion does not necessarily connote the use of violence. It may be the product of unintentional statements.
Right against self-incrimination of an accused vs. that of an ordinary witness
An ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege.
However, an accused may refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions.
When Invoked
An ordinary witness can only claim such right when the specific incriminatory question is actually put to the witness.
It cannot be claimed at any other time.
How Invoked by Witness
The right gainst self-incrimination is not self-executing or automatically operational. It must be claimed.
If not lcaimed by or in behalf of the witness, the protection does not come into play.
Scope
The right against self-incrimination protects a person only from testimonial compulsion.
Proceedings where the right may be asserted
Any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding
Waivable Right
If the accused testifies in his own behalf, he may be cross-examined on mattes covered by the direct examination.
How Waived
To be effect, a waiver must be certain and unequivocal, and intelligently, understandably, and willingly made.
e. Right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial
Cross-Examination
The cross-examination of a witness is essential to test his or her accuracy and uncover the truth
Inapplicable in Preliminary Investigation
Under the present Rules on Criminal Procedure, the right of confrontation does not apply in a preliminary investigation.
The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or witness.
Effect of Deprivation of Right to Cross-Examination
If one is deprived of the chance to cross-examine without fault on his part, he is entitled to have the direct examination stricken from the record.
d. Right to speedy trial
Right of the Accused
The right to speedy trial is a right of the accused in a criminal case.
It cannot be invoked by someone who is not an accused.
Constitutional Right
In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right to have a speedy, impartial and public trial.
(Sec. 14(2), Art. 3, 1987 Constitution)
Essence
Justice shall be impartially administered without unncessary delay.
Orderly not Speedy
While justice is administered with dispatch, the essential ingredient is orderly, expeditious and not mere speed.
When Violated
The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when:
(a) Proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays
(b) Unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured
(c) Without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried
Other Unjustified Reasons
The following are insufficient excuses for the delay in deciding a case within the prescribed period:
(a) Poor Health of Judge
(b) Additional Assignments
(c) Absence of branch clerk of court
(d) Non-submission of transcript of stenographic notes by stenographers
(e) Defects in a motion
Postponements are Allowed
The right to speedy trial does not preclude justifiable postponements and delay when warranted by the situation.
Facts and Circumtances Considered
In the application of the right, the facts and ciircumstances peculiar to each case must be considered.
Factors for granting continuance
The following are factors which a justice or judge shall consider in determining W/N a continuance should be granted:
(a) W/N the failure to grant such continuance would result in a miscarriage of justice or make such continuation of such proceeding impossible
(b) W/N the case taken as a whole is so novel or unusual that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the periods of time established
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases vs. RIght to Speedy Trial
The right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial even though are rationale is the same.
When Invoked
The right to speedy trial may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions against courts of law.
The right to speedy disposition of cases may be invoked before any tribunal (whether judicial or quasi-judiciaal or administrative bodies).
Who May Invoke
The right to speedy trial may only be invoked by the accused.
The right to speedy disposition of cases may be invoked by all parties in all cases.
Effect of Violation
The trial court may dismis a criminal case if the accused is not brought to trial within the prescribed time and is depsrived of his right to a speedy trial or disposition of the case.
Doctrine of Inordinate Delay
A criminal case may be dismissed for violation of a person's right to speedy disposition of cases.
e.g. inordinate delay in terminating PI and filing information
Equivalent to Acquittal
A dismissal based on a violation of the right to a speedy trial is equivalent to an acquittal.
Thus, double jeopardy may attach and further prosecution of the accused for the same offense is barred.
Remedy of accused where he is not brought to trial within the time limit
Where the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by the Rules, the information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial.
Accused and Prosecution's Burdens
The accused has the burden of proving the motion.
The prosecution has the burden of showing evidence to establish the exclusion of time under Sec. 3, Rule 119.
Failure to Move = Waiver
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal before trial constitutes a waiver of the right to have the information dismissed under Sec. 3, Rule 119.
f. Right to have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf
Constitutional Right
The right to compulsory process may be invoked by the accused to secure the attendance of witnesses and the product of witnesses in his behalf.
(Sec. 14(2), Art. 3, 1987 Constitution)
g. Right to self-representation
Right to Self-Representation
Upon motion, the accused may be allowed by the court to defend himself in person.
When it sufficiently appears to teh court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.
h. Right to Counsel
Right to Counsel at Every Stage
The accused has the right to defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings.
From arraignment to promulgation of judgment.
Right enjoyed by Everyone
One need not be an accused to avail of the right to counsel.
The right to counsel does not commence only during the trial.
Persons in Custody
Every person under custody of the law enjoys the right.
Any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
(Sec. 2(a), RA 7438)
Right to counsel during Custodial Investigation
No counsel = no custodial investigation
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted.
Even if the confession is true, it becomes inadmissible in evidence, regardless if it was voluntarily given.
Allowed to Confer Privately with Person Arrested
A counsel shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation.
Purpose
To curb the police-state practice of extracting a confession that leads suspects to make self-incriminating statements.
When Not Yet Available
A mere inquitry on the commission of a crime by law enforcement authorites does not automatically trigger the application of the right to counsel.
During police line-up
A police line-up is not part of tge custodial investigation. At this point, the accused is not yet being investigated.
Thus, the right to counsel does not attach in a police line-up.
When Available
It is only after:
(a) Investigation has ceased to be a general inquirty into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect
(b) The suspect is taken into custody
(c) The police carries out a process of interrogations that lend itself to eliciting incriminating statements
When police elicits admissions
The moment a police officer tries to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information from a suspect, the suspect should be assisted by counsel.
Unless he waives this right in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Suspect may reject counsel provided by police authorities
The suspect must be advised that he has the option to reject the counsel provided for him by the police authorities.
Right to counsel during Preliminary Investigation
The PI is no different from in-custody interrogations by the police.
A suspect who takes part in a PI will be subjected to the State's processes of pursuing those who might be liable for criminal prosecution.
Right to choose a counsel is not plenary
The choice of counsel by the accused in a criminal prosecution is not plenary.
If the chosen counsel is missing, the court may appoint a
de officio
counsel, which it considers competent and independent.
Purpose
To enable the trial to proceed until the counsel of choice enteres his appearance.
Otherwise, the pace of a criminal prosecution will be dictated by the accused, which is detrimental to the eventual resolution of the case.
Competent and Independent Counsel
The assigned counsel must be willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused.
As distinguished from one who would be merely giving a routine and meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights.
Extrajudicial confession with a counsel who failed to meet the standard
An extrajudicial confession executed by a suspect assisted by a counsel who failed to meet the standards of an independent and competent counsel is deemed an
uncounseled confession.
Therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence.
Waivable Right
The right to counsel may be waived.
However, to insure that the waiver is voluntary and intelligent, the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of the counsel of the accused.
Right to Counsel in Administrative Cases
While the assistance of counsel is sacred in criminal proceedings, there is no such requirement in administrative proceedings.
A party in an administrative proceeding may or may not be assisted by counsel.
There is no law, jurisprudence or rule which mandates that an employee should be assisted by counsel in an administrative case.
No duty to provide counsel
The administrative body is under no duty to provide the person with counsel because assistance of counsel is not an absolute requirement.
i. Right to an impartial judge
j. Right to remain silent
B. Rights of persons under Custodial Investigation
Custodial Investigation
Any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or deprived of liberty.
Expanded Scope
RA 7438 extended custodial investigation to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has been "invited" for questioning.
"Custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing an invitiation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the 'inviting' officer for any violation of law."
(Sec. 2, RA 7438)
Request for Apperance = Invitation
A "request for appearace" issued by law enforcers to a person identified as a suspect is akin to an "invitation"
Thus, the suspect is entitled to the rights of an accused while under custodial investigation.
Any admission obtained from the "request for appearance" without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence.